There is a particular genre of financial commentary that mistakes legal process for a factual verdict. A court delivers a first-instance ruling, procedural questions are raised, and before the ink is dry on the appeal filing, the narrative has already hardened: the regulator overreached, investor confidence is shattered, and Nigeria’s financial governance is on trial before the world.

Much of the commentary currently circulating about Union Bank of Nigeria belongs to that genre. It is not without merit on certain procedural questions. But it is, at its core, incomplete — and incompleteness in financial journalism carries costs that run well beyond the column.

The Acquisition That Started Everything

In 2022, Titan Trust Bank Limited, then chaired by Mr Tunde Lemo, acquired approximately 94 per cent of Union Bank of Nigeria through two Dubai-registered entities: Luxis International DMCC, promoted by Mr Rahul Savara, and Mr Cornelius Vink’s Magna International DMCC, both linked to the Tropical General Investments (TGI) Group.

The US$300 million transaction was financed predominantly through an Afreximbank facility. The CBN’s policy is unambiguous: borrowed funds may not be used to acquire shares in a licensed financial institution. That principle exists because debt-funded acquisitions hollow out the very capital base they purport to build.

That is precisely what happened. A forensic audit found that the Afreximbank loan was ultimately reflected in Union Bank’s own books, with no hedging arrangements against naira depreciation. As the currency weakened, revaluation losses intensified, the capital adequacy ratio deteriorated into negative territory, non-performing loan exposure increased significantly, and a substantial capital shortfall emerged.

Critically, as stated in the Bank’s own Notice of Appeal, a special examination was conducted, and its findings were formally presented to former Managing Director Mudassir Amray and the board then chaired by Farouk Gumel, who were confronted with the institution’s grave financial condition and continuing regulatory infractions. The claim that the CBN acted without evidence before dissolving the board is, on the record, simply not accurate.

The Legal Picture

The CBN acted under Section 34 of BOFIA 2020 and Section 52 of the CBN Act 2007 — broad discretionary executive powers that do not require a special examination as a condition precedent. The Federal High Court’s characterization of those powers as quasi-judicial is itself among the central questions now on appeal. Both the CBN and Union Bank have filed formal appeals.

Union Bank’s own Notice of Appeal, filed the day after judgment on thirteen grounds and argued by Olaniwun Ajayi LP, challenges the ruling on several fronts: that the respondents may never have had locus standi to sue in the first place, under the rule in Foss v. Harbottle; that the application was filed nearly two years after the January 2024 events, well outside the prescribed three-month limitation window; and that the CBN-supervised recapitalisation exercise, mandated under Section 9
of BOFIA, cannot constitute evidence of bad faith. These are not technicalities. They are substantive questions of law that the Court of Appeal must now determine.

The Human Stakes and the Real Question

Behind the legal arguments sit approximately 7.8 million depositors and around 6,450 employees across 281 branches. Union Bank’s own affidavit describes it as a systemically important institution in a precarious financial situation, continuing to rely on CBN forbearance for its existence — a frank admission that validates, rather than undermines, the case for intervention. Meanwhile, critics argue the dispute damages investor confidence. The wider evidence does not support that conclusion.

By April 2026, thirty-three Nigerian banks had raised N4.65 trillion under the CBN’s recapitalisation framework — over ten times the 2004 to 2005 consolidation figure. The Nigerian Exchange All-Share Index rose approximately 29 per cent in the first quarter of 2026 alone. The market has read the CBN’s resolve as stability, not recklessness. Conflating this case with a systemic confidence crisis runs the risk of misleading the very international investors the commentary claims to be protecting.

The structural vulnerability at the centre of this dispute originates not with the regulator but with an acquisition financed with borrowed funds, loaded onto the acquired institution’s balance sheet, and left unhedged against exchange-rate risk. When the CBN stepped in, it was doing what central banks everywhere are expected to do. When Union Bank’s own legally constituted board subsequently filed its own appeal, it was signalling what a properly constituted governance structure recognises as being in the institution’s best interests. Nigeria’s appellate courts — not the court of commentary — are the appropriate arena for resolution.

Union Bank of Nigeria is a 109-year-old institution serving nearly eight million depositors. It is not being dismantled. It is being stabilised under active regulatory supervision, with operations intact and depositors protected. In the language of institutional governance, that is called stewardship. The commentary that mistakes it for anything else does the institution, its depositors, and Nigeria’s financial governance narrative a disservice that will outlast the headlines.

*Bala Rabiu, writes from Kano

Federal High Court has ordered the Ministry of Finance to disclose the total amount paid under the $460 million Abuja CCTV loan, the identities of local and Chinese contractors who received the funds, the status of the project’s implementation, and details relating to the N1.5 billion reportedly paid for the Code of Conduct Bureau headquarters project.

The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has urged Mr. Taiwo Oyedele, the Minister of Finance and Co-ordinating Minister of the Economy to immediately disclose the identities of all local contractors, subcontractors, consultants, vendors, and other entities that benefited from the payments under the National Public Security Communication System project in Abuja, commonly referred to as the $460 million Abuja CCTV Project.

The Federal Ministry of Finance, in response to SERAP’s contempt proceedings, had recently disclosed that: “Records from the Ministry of Police Affairs indicate that while local subcontractors may have been engaged, there is an absence of detailed subcontracting records identifying specific local companies that received funds directly from the Chinese loan.”

The Ministry made the disclosure in a letter dated 15 May 2026 and signed by R. O. Omachi, permanent secretary, Federal Ministry of Finance,.

Responding, SERAP in a letter dated 23 May 2026 and signed by Kolawole Oluwadare, deputy director, said: “We are concerned that although the judgment was delivered in May 2023, the Ministry only released some information after we commenced contempt proceedings and served a Notice to show cause in January 2026.”

According to SERAP, “Nigerians still do not know exactly the names of local contractors for the project. The absence of this information raises serious concerns about record keeping, transparency and accountability, and whether the project was implemented in a manner consistent with the public interest.”

On 15 May 2023, the Federal High Court ordered the Ministry of Finance to disclose the total amount paid under the $460 million Abuja CCTV loan, the identities of local and Chinese contractors who received the funds, the status of the project’s implementation, and details relating to the N1.5 billion reportedly paid for the Code of Conduct Bureau headquarters project.

SERAP said, “The details provided amount to only partial compliance with Justice Emeka Nwite’s judgment. Key questions remain unanswered, and further clarification is needed to ensure full and effective compliance with the judgment.”

SERAP’s letter, read in part: “We would be grateful if the requested details are provided within 48 hours of the receipt and/or publication of this letter. If we have not heard from you by then, SERAP shall proceed with our contempt proceedings against the Federal Ministry of Finance for failure to fully and effectively comply with the judgment of the Federal High Court.

“SERAP appreciates the steps taken by the Ministry to provide some information concerning the Chinese loan drawdown, counterpart funding arrangements, and certain records on equipment deliveries connected with the project.

“However, there is still no explanation regarding the missing 6,035 items as part of the status of implementation of the project. It remains unclear whether the items were subsequently delivered, whether payment was made for them, whether the contractor defaulted, whether Nigeria suffered any financial loss, and whether any steps were taken to recover public funds.

“The Ministry lists items reportedly delivered in 2013. However, it has failed to clarify how many cameras were installed, if any; where they were installed; whether the cameras are currently operational; and whether the project delivered value for money.

“The inability or failure to disclose these records raises serious public interest concerns about record keeping, contract administration, and accountability for public expenditure.

“For a project financed through public borrowing—debt Nigerians continue to repay—full transparency over all beneficiaries, foreign and domestic, is essential. Nigerians have the right to know how public funds were spent, who received them, and what was delivered in return.

“Compliance with court judgments is fundamental to the rule of law and constitutional governance. Government agencies cannot selectively comply with judicial orders or release partial information while withholding records central to public accountability.”

SERAP, therefore, urged Mr Oyedele and the Federal Ministry of Finance to fully, effectively, and urgently implement the judgment of the Federal High Court ordering disclosure of information relating to the Abuja CCTV project including by:

*Publishing the names of all Nigerian companies, subcontractors, consultants, and vendors involved in the project.

*Disclosing the amount paid to each contractor or subcontractor and the nature of work performed.

*Provide details of the status of implementation of the project including by releasing the certificates of completion, and accounting for the 6,035 project items identified as undelivered.

Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA) has placed 11 domestic airlines on its updated “No-Pay-No-Service” list over unpaid statutory charges, a move that could affect the renewal of key operational approvals, including Air Operator’s Certificates (AOC).

According to an internal memo dated May 22, 2026, the regulator directed all its directorates to suspend regulatory and administrative services to the affected carriers until they clear outstanding debts or agree on repayment terms.

The directive means that services linked to certification and oversight, such as AOC renewals, Air Transport Licences (ATL), and Airline Operating Permits (AOP), may be withheld, raising concerns over possible operational disruptions in the aviation sector.

The affected airlines include Air Peace Limited, Ibom Air, Arik Air, ValueJet, United Nigeria Airlines, Umza Air, NG Eagle, Max Air, Caverton Helicopters, Overland Airways, and Rano Air.

At the centre of the dispute is the five per cent Ticket Sales Charge and Cargo Sales Charge, which airlines collect on behalf of the NCAA to fund safety oversight, personnel training, and economic regulation in the industry.

The memo, signed by Olufemi Odukoya, director of Finance and Accounts, NCAA, and circulated to regional offices, instructed that no directorate should render services to the listed airlines without financial clearance from the finance department.

It further warned that all services remain suspended pending verification and clearance of outstanding obligations.

While the directive has sparked concerns among industry stakeholders about possible delays in regulatory processes, some affected operators say they are unaware of the order.

Banji Ola, Arik Air’s spokesperson,  said the airline had no knowledge of such a directive.

“I am not aware of any such directive or report.” Ola said

Whisky Efe and Anietie Essienette, spokespersons of Air Peace and Ibom Air, respectively did not respond as of the time of filing this report.

The development has raised fresh uncertainty in the sector, with operators and passengers wary of potential disruptions if the standoff persists